This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
Archive 40 | ← | Archive 43 | Archive 44 | Archive 45 | Archive 46 | Archive 47 | → | Archive 50 |
Similar to |df=
, it would be immensely useful to have a |af=
, covering author format. Right now we have |name-list-format=
(which accepts vanc
), but that's just awful to remember.
You could have
|last#=Smith |first#=John Howard (or |editor#-last=Smith |editor#-first=John Howard )
| |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
Core proposal [1] | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Last, First [2] | Last First [3] | First Last | MOS:INITIALS-compliant [4] | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
|
|
| ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Extended [5] | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Last, First | Last First | First Last | Specific style | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
|
|
| ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Overide | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|af#=ignore would ignore validation for |last#= /|first#= /|author#= specifically.
[6] This would allow for single-name authors (e.g. |author1=Riazuddin |author2=Fayyazuddin |last3=Rashid |first3=M. A. ) and corporate names (e.g. |author=RAND Corporation ) without losing the benefits of specific formats (e.g. |af=F. M. Last ).
| |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
Those would kick in for authors/editors and format them in the specified manner, e.g.
|last1=Dickinson
|first1=Emily
|last2=Fitzgerald
|first2=Francis Scott Key
|af=Last, F.M.
→ Dickinson, E.; Fitzgerald, F.S.K.|last1=Dickinson
|first1=Emily
|last2=Fitzgerald
|first2=Francis Scott Key
|af=Last, FM
→ Dickinson, E; Fitzgerald, FSK|last1=Dickinson
|first1=Emily
|last2=Fitzgerald
|first2=Francis Scott Key
|af=F. M. Last
→ E. Dickinson; F. S. K. Fitzgerald|last1=Dickinson
|first1=Emily
|last2=Fitzgerald
|first2=Francis Scott Key
|af=Vanc
→ Dickinson E, Fitzgerald FSand throw in error messages when the conversion to the specified format couldn't work.
|author1=Emily Dickinson
|last2=Fitzgerald
|first2=Francis Scott Key
|af=F. M. Last
→ Emily Dickinson; F. S. K. Fitzgerald (Error: |af=F. M. Last
requires |lastn=
/|firstn=
to be used consistently, convert |author1=
to |last1=
/|first1=
.)or have other issues
|last1=Dickinson
|first1=E.
, |last2=Fitzgerald
|first2=F. S.K.
|af=af
→ Dickinson, E.; F. S.K. Fitzgerald (Error: |first2=
has spacing issues)|last1=Languillat
|first1=J. -C
→ Languillat, J. -C (Error: |first1=J. -C
is mis-abbreviated.)|last1=Howard
|first1=J. B.C
→ Languillat, J. B.C (Error: |first1=J. B.C
is mis-abbreviated.)And then we could deprecate the god-awful |name-list-format=
.
Headbomb {
t ·
c ·
p ·
b} 14:30, 5 July 2018 (UTC)
|ao=
, or the long version, |author-order=
, with the allowable values being
|af3=AF1
to display |last3=Liu
|first3=Jianguo
one as the Chinese order Liu Jianguo, rather than Western order Jianguo Liu.
Headbomb {
t ·
c ·
p ·
b} 16:31, 5 July 2018 (UTC)|df=
is because Citoid, and its engineers, didn't want to fight with date formatting. I would oppose a spread of "X-format" parameters, since no need has been demonstrated here and adds a significant deviation in formatting. (We have the Vancouver formatting to draw Vancouverites trivially into the fold from using |authors=
, so I don't see an analog there, either.) --
Izno (
talk) 17:18, 5 July 2018 (UTC)
|first#=
manually, and then manually editing everything to use initials, as well as converting |author=
to |last=
/|first=
in the proper format. This also reduces the value of metadata a bit. Applying |af=LF4
to all citations would be so much easier and quicker to bring everything in a consistent format, find errors, and future proof the article's existing citation.
User:Citation Bot could then see that |af=LF4
is used in the article, and whenever it adds citations, it could then use |af=LF4
too. (Likewise for Citoid.)
Headbomb {
t ·
c ·
p ·
b} 18:07, 5 July 2018 (UTC)
|af=LF4
(or whichever style) afterwards make cleanup a million times quicker.
Headbomb {
t ·
c ·
p ·
b} 20:23, 5 July 2018 (UTC)
|name-list-format=CS1
or |af=LF4
would be useful to render |vauthors=
in standard CS1 author format in cases where CS1 is the predominate/first established style.
Boghog (
talk) 19:45, 5 July 2018 (UTC)|vauthors=
. However, we don't need this many citation formats. We should be moving toward consistency, not chaos. No one would remember that table of codes, nor use them consistently. We shouldn't have a name output formatting option that isn't either CS1/CS2 as defaults, depending on the template used, or output that is required (not just optional) by a particular major off-site citation style – one that can be reliably sourced in detail and as in current use, e.g. listed in Turabian, or as the mandatory style of some major journal publisher, or otherwise neither
WP:NFT nor obsolete. That is, if the citation style permits either "Chung, Margaret T." or "Chung, M. T." then we need no option to truncate to the latter (unless that abbreviated form is a hard requirement in some other cite style ). We have no editorial or reader interest in truncating the name data if not forced to do so. We likewise have no reason for any
MOS:INITIALS-defying formats (without the dots and/or spaces), absent a hard requirement like Vancouver's "Chung MT". —
SMcCandlish
☏
¢ 😼 22:10, 5 July 2018 (UTC)
you still won't be able to change them per WP:CITEVAR": bullshit. CITEVAR says only to first seek consensus. It doesn't even require consensus, only to first seek it. Having
|af=
is a good idea, but invoking CITEVAR drama to argue a piddling detail is not helpful. ♦
J. Johnson (JJ) (
talk) 19:44, 8 July 2018 (UTC)
I took the feedback from above, and refined the proposal. I've separated the outputs into those that are
MOS:INITIALS-compliant and those that aren't, and got rid of the obscure 'codes' in favor of obvious things people don't need to remember or look up. The ideal solution (maybe this would be possible with
WP:TemplateStyles) would be to declare one what the author format is once (e.g. {{
reflist|af=Last, F. M.}}
), and have citations inherit the style from there, but failing that a (non-mandatory, of course) |af=
in the citation themselves would allow to have much of the same effect.
Headbomb {
t ·
c ·
p ·
b} 00:49, 6 July 2018 (UTC)
|last=Smith
/|first=J.F.
, |author=John Smith
, |last=Smith
/|first=JF
and |last=Smith
/|first=John
. Often in the same citation. This isn't a proposal to deploy those by bots, but to allow humans to more easily standardize citation articles and clean them up when they need to be, and help bots respect an existing style.
Headbomb {
t ·
c ·
p ·
b} 22:51, 7 July 2018 (UTC)
|af=Last, F. M.
, rather than changing |last1=DeLamater |first1=John D. |last2=Sill |first2=Morgan
to |last1=DeLamater |first1=J. D. |last2=Sill |first2=M.
manually.
Headbomb {
t ·
c ·
p ·
b} 23:17, 7 July 2018 (UTC)|af=initials
I could supply what I have, and the article could be consistent using just initials.|firstX=
displayed as specified (first name, middle initials, "Jr.", etc.).|af=initials
: initial (with period) of first name, with middle initials.|af=vanc
: displayed in Vancouver style.|af=bluebook
(or |af=caps
): last name in small-caps.|af=initials
, it is indeed untidy to have full names for some authors and only initials for others, and, as you say, sometimes that's all that is available. But tidying that up by uniformly displaying only initials would be hiding information that could be useful to readers.
Kanguole 09:29, 9 July 2018 (UTC)
I took the feedback from both sections above, and I realize this was turning into something way more complicated than it needed to be. So instead, I've refocused this into something more straightforward, focusing on flagging downright errors at 99% case use, rather than minor style variations (but still allowing them).
|af=
left empty) would simply verify that |last#=
/|first#=
/|author#=
are not wrong. It would report a variety of issues like bad hyphenation (|first=J.- H.
, bad abbreviations (|first=J. H
, bad capitalizations |first=J. h.
, or bad punctuation (|first=John,
. No error messages are thrown if you have a mixture of "Smith, John H." and "Jones, A. F.".|af=First Last
simply displays the first/last names in that order, checks that the parameters themselves are not wrong, and makes sures that |last#=
/|first#=
is not mixed with |author#=
. This can be overridden by |af#=ignore
so single names / corporate names can still be used.|af=MOS
would ensure that initials, if used, would be in the MOS-format. This can help catch inconsistent abbreviations, when used (e.g. |first1=J.H.
+ |first2=A F
), but does not force abbreviations to be used.|af=Last, F. M.
or |af=F.M. Last
or whatever to present things in that specific format. If |af=F.M. Last
is used, both |last=Smith
|first=John H.
/ |last=Smith
|first=J. H.
are presented as J.H. Smith. Errors are only reported when the parameters themselves are wrong or the output cannot be presented in the specified format.Headbomb { t · c · p · b} 19:17, 9 July 2018 (UTC)
|author#=Thant
is all that's needed (or possibly |author#=U Thant
if the honorific is needed, although we don't usually include those). But let's say there's someone out there with the first name O and a last name of Johnson, well there's nothing wrong with |last=Johnson
|first=O
, so there wouldn't be any errors shown there. You would get an error if you specified |af=MOS
, but it's something you could overide with |af#=ignore
.
Headbomb {
t ·
c ·
p ·
b} 20:36, 9 July 2018 (UTC)|af=MOS
should be a default not an option; MoS applies to citation material except when a citation style requires (not just optionally permits) a variance from it, and that citation style is used consistently in the article (and even then we might have a consensus discussion to change it). Second, we don't need to throw errors for trivial problems, except maybe in preview mode. Better to have a cleanup category and may be
WP:GENFIXES deal with it. —
SMcCandlish
☏
¢ 😼 22:05, 9 July 2018 (UTC)
|af=MOS
being the default would lead to hundreds of thousands of errors for perfectly valid styles. So no, we can't make that default. And cases like
Jennifer 8. Lee are not forgotten, that's what |af#=ignore
is for.
Headbomb {
t ·
c ·
p ·
b} 22:08, 9 July 2018 (UTC)
You can wish the templates/people worked in a way until you're blue in the face, the fact remain that people use them and errors creep in. For instance, in Jyoti Bhusan Chatterjea you have the following
{{
cite web}}
: CS1 maint: multiple names: authors list (
link)Should we do nothing? Or should we tell people "Hey, this is not how you should use |last=
"? This way the error can be fixed and the citation turned into a proper:
This sort of error checking would lead to vast amounts of citation improvements and fixes. For instance, the very basic error of the type |last=J.
are so numerous you cannot find them all with straightfoward searches (
Search for insource:/last *= *[A-Z]\./).
Also the parameters values are not cryptic, they are explicit in what the format should be. If you've got better names for parameter values, put them forward, but I don't feel you could be clearer. Headbomb { t · c · p · b} 23:16, 9 July 2018 (UTC)
Please see
Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style/Dates and numbers#Proposal: End "date-forking" into different styles for publication and access/archive in same cite
—
SMcCandlish
☏
¢ 😼 15:20, 29 July 2018 (UTC)
I have removed lang in Module:Citation/CS1/Suggestions/sandbox as it was whitelisted previously.
I also have a question regarding the suggestions list: the module documentation says the main list is only semi-protected. Does that mean we are invited to make a change there without sandboxing it first and waiting for the general cadence of rollouts? Or should that be full/template-protected given that it is presently transcluded on 20k pages? -- Izno ( talk) 21:53, 31 July 2018 (UTC)
This might be a frequent question, but how is one supposed to cite a portion (certain page(s)) of an article in a periodical, or a chapter from a book, in a Wikipedia article that does not have separate lists of references and bibliography, especially when the said work is cited only once in the article?
I know there are {{
r}}, {{
rp}}, {{
sfn}}, etc., but AFAIK they are seldom used for works cited only once in such an article, and quite often do I see |page(s)=
used for the range of pages of the work that is relevant to the claim, not of where to locate the work as a whole in a larger volume (which is permitted according to the
template documentation). But it is also the usual practice (not just on Wikipedia but in scholarly works in general) to indicate the range of pages the cited work occupies in a volume so that the reader knows where to look for it. But in the CS1 templates, only one of |page=
, |pages=
and |at=
is allowed to appear, so these two practices are not feasible at the same time at least in a CS1 template.
So how is one supposed to indicate the relevant part of a source that is in turn a part of a larger volume? Need one indicate only the relevant portion and not the location of the work itself? Or indicate the the location of the work in the template and use {{ rp}} etc. to show the relevant part, even if the work is cited only once? Nardog ( talk) 20:37, 30 July 2018 (UTC)
<ref>{{cite book/journal/etc|...}}</ref>
, but the relevant information that backs up my claim is only on page 30. The book is not cited anywhere else in the article. What should I do?
Nardog (
talk) 21:04, 30 July 2018 (UTC)
page: The number of a single page in the source that supports the content.it doesn't say to specify what pages the chapters are. Emir of Wikipedia ( talk) 21:09, 30 July 2018 (UTC)
{{
cite journal}}
which is our template for those journals. cs1|2 have elected to lump all identifiers together at the end of the rendered citation (it has been this way for many a year.those academic journals(whichever they might be). Not going to do that except to say: the citation style used by any particular academic journal has no bearing on how cs1|2 render citations at en.wiki; has no bearing on how the community here have decided that cs1|2 shall execute those renderings; has no bearing on what the community here have decided are the appropriate uses of the template parameters.
notationso I guess I have no idea what it is that you are asking.
I wrote nothing about notation, I was referring to my previous post, where, in fact, I had written nothing about notation.
I'm asking you if you know of any academic publication or house style that indicates, inside a citation (not in-text references), the page range of the relevant part of the cited work in place of that of the entire work in a larger work, such as a book or journal.Nardog ( talk) 20:11, 31 July 2018 (UTC)
2. Baker, R.W., Knox, J.C., Lively, R.S., and Olsen, B.R., 1998, Evidence for early entrenchment of the upper Mississippi River valley, in Patterson, C.J., and Wright, H.E., Jr., eds., Contributions to Quaternary Studies in Minnesota: Minnesota Geological Survey Report of Investigations 49, p. 113–120.
if you know of any academic publication [such as a journal or book] or house style [such as CMS, APA, MLA, AP, or whatever a publisher adopts] that indicates, inside a [full] citation (not in-text references ["short-cites" as you call them]), the page range of the relevant part [or, "the in-source location of the specific material or passage you are citing"] of the cited work [such as a journal paper or book chapter] in place of [the page range] of [the entirety of the aforementioned journal paper or book chapter] in [the journal issue or book the said paper or chapter is included in].Now is that clearer to you? Nardog ( talk) 01:26, 2 August 2018 (UTC)
{{
cite journal|...}}
Theorem 4, p. 29." or "{{
cite journal|...}}
See in particular p. 29." —
David Eppstein (
talk) 20:54, 30 July 2018 (UTC)
{{
cite xxx}}
" is my standard way of doing it.
Headbomb {
t ·
c ·
p ·
b} 21:02, 30 July 2018 (UTC)
|pages=
to show the location (page range) of that portion in the larger work. (Note that I dispute the use of |pages=
for in-source speicification.)|page(s)=
.
Nardog (
talk) 23:06, 30 July 2018 (UTC)
not natively supported by those templates": ah, perhaps you are referring to the current necessity of adding a
|ref=harv
line when using CS1 templates. Which is certainly easy enough. And see also the
#Proposal: make ref=harv the default for CS1 discussion above about having "ref" default to "harv" for CS1 templates. Or just use {{
citation}}, where "ref=harv" is already the default. ♦
J. Johnson (JJ) (
talk) 21:48, 31 July 2018 (UTC)
|ref=harv
don't have much use for a source that appear only once in an article without a bibliography, do they?<ref>...</ref>
with a cite template in it. If {{cite xxx}} had a built-in ability to indicate where the portion of the source relevant to the claim is outside the main citation in addition to where to find the entire source, don't you think that would deter people from using |page(s)=
for in-source specifications?
Nardog (
talk) 22:02, 31 July 2018 (UTC)
<ref>...</ref>
tags are part of the citation itself. That one can add all sorts of stuff inside a note seems to be not well known. I don't know what kind of {cite} feature would fix that.Chicago Manual of Style, 17th ed., in the chapter on the notes & bibliography system of citation, p. 752, states
Page numbers and other locators. In notes, where reference is usually to a particular passage in a book or journal, only the page numbers pertaining to that passage are given. In bibliographies, no page numbers are given for books cited as a whole; for easier location of journal articles or for chapeters or other sections of a book, the beginning and ending page numbers of the entire article or chapter are given.
Jc3s5h ( talk) 19:10, 31 July 2018 (UTC)
page numbers pertaining to that passage are given" (italics added) sounds like an in-source specifier. Those go with the short-cites; they do not apply to the full citations that might be collected in a bibliography, and are not contingent on having a biblography. ♦ J. Johnson (JJ) ( talk) 22:22, 31 July 2018 (UTC)
Side note: Editors who believe that {{
rp}} is an abomination should watch
m:WMDE Technical Wishes/Book referencing. The creator of the rp template is hoping that his old template could be retired after this long-discussed system is (eventually) implemented.
WhatamIdoing (
talk) 05:09, 1 August 2018 (UTC)
Just like |pages=1-15
renders as 1–15, rather than 1-15, so should |issue=1-2
render as 1–2, rather than 1-2.
Headbomb {
t ·
c ·
p ·
b} 14:17, 30 July 2018 (UTC)
Wikitext | {{cite journal
|
---|---|
Live | "Title". Journal. 1 (3–4): 5–6. |
Sandbox | "Title". Journal. 1 (3–4): 5–6. |
|volume=
but only when rendering in bold font; not when |volume=
renders in normal font:
{{cite journal/new |title=Title |journal=Journal |volume=1-2}}
{{cite journal/new |title=Title |journal=Journal |volume=1-2}}
|pages=3-A
/|issue=3-A
/|volume=3-A
, e.g.
{{
cite journal}}
: Cite journal requires |journal=
(
help){{cite journal |title=Title |volume=3-a |issue=3-A |pages=3-A}}
Wikitext | {{cite journal
|
---|---|
Live | "Title". 3-A (a-3): 3–15. {{
cite journal}} : Cite journal requires |journal= (
help)
|
Sandbox | "Title". 3-A (a-3): 3–15. {{
cite journal}} : Cite journal requires |journal= (
help)
|
{{
cite journal}}
: Cite journal requires |journal=
(
help)|pages=L21-L23
? Those are pretty common.
Headbomb {
t ·
c ·
p ·
b} 04:16, 2 August 2018 (UTC)
Wikitext | {{cite book
|
---|---|
Live | Title. pp. 3–6, A–C, R–S, L3 - L6, H4–H9, 3A–6B, 15, A. |
Sandbox | Title. pp. 3–6, A–C, R–S, L3 - L6, H4–H9, 3A–6B, 15, A. |
Wikitext | {{cite book
|
---|---|
Live | Title. pp. 3–6, A–C, R–S, L3 – L6, 3A–6B. |
Sandbox | Title. pp. 3–6, A–C, R–S, L3 – L6, 3A–6B. |
Wikitext | {{cite book
|
---|---|
Live | Title. pp. 3.a–6.a, A-1–C-5, 1-2–1-5. |
Sandbox | Title. pp. 3.a–6.a, A-1–C-5, 1-2–1-5. |
|page=1-2
is still converted to use an endash. Elsewhere I suggested a mechanism that could be used to mean "accept this as written" which uses the doubled-parentheses markup supported by |vauthors=
as |page=((1-2))
|ref=harv
onerous. If we are looking for ease-of-typing, adding ((
and ))
seems easier to me than typing out the ten characters required for {{
hyphen}}
. This works:
{{cite book/new |title=Title |pages=3.a - 6.a, A-1 - C-5, ((1-2a)), 1-2-1-5}}
We need to ditch this. All it's doing is producing shite metadata, and people are abusing it to destroy good metadata we already have. I keep having to revert this all the time. |vauthors=
is a pointless drain on other editors' time. If someone wants Vancouver-style names, they can do |last1=Ceesdale
|first1=AB
|last2=Effly
|first2=DE
....
—
SMcCandlish
☏
¢ 😼 07:40, 5 July 2018 (UTC)
|vauthors=
is not the same as that produced by |last=
|first=
?
{{cite book |title=Title |last1=Ceesdale |first1=AB |last2=Effly |first2=DE}}
'"`UNIQ--templatestyles-00000048-QINU`"'<cite id="CITEREFCeesdaleEffly" class="citation book cs1">Ceesdale, AB; Effly, DE. ''Title''.</cite><span title="ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&rft_val_fmt=info%3Aofi%2Ffmt%3Akev%3Amtx%3Abook&rft.genre=book&rft.btitle=Title&rft.aulast=Ceesdale&rft.aufirst=AB&rft.au=Effly%2C+DE&rfr_id=info%3Asid%2Fen.wikipedia.org%3AHelp+talk%3ACitation+Style+1%2FArchive+45" class="Z3988"></span>
{{cite book |title=Title |vauthors=Ceesdale AB, Effly DE}}
'"`UNIQ--templatestyles-0000004B-QINU`"'<cite id="CITEREFCeesdaleEffly" class="citation book cs1">Ceesdale AB, Effly DE. ''Title''.</cite><span title="ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&rft_val_fmt=info%3Aofi%2Ffmt%3Akev%3Amtx%3Abook&rft.genre=book&rft.btitle=Title&rft.aulast=Ceesdale&rft.aufirst=AB&rft.au=Effly%2C+DE&rfr_id=info%3Asid%2Fen.wikipedia.org%3AHelp+talk%3ACitation+Style+1%2FArchive+45" class="Z3988"></span>
|vauthors=
has advanced logic because it expects a very specific format and will throw errors if things are not declared in that format. That's why it can produce the correct metadata.
Headbomb {
t ·
c ·
p ·
b} 14:33, 5 July 2018 (UTC)
|vauthors=
should just be deprecated and replaced with a |vanc=
parameter that applies visual output munging to data submitted as parameter information – without loss of actual data; i.e. render |last1=Samuels
|first1=Diana R.
|vanc=y
as Samuels DR, without costing us the full name, which may be the only way to tell one author apart from another without digging around in journal sites that maybe, if you're lucky, will give you the full name.
Any time people convert other citation formats to Vancouver, they cost us information (not just metadata). This makes it pointlessly onerous to convert back (either re-research the sources, or dig back in page history) even when there's a WP:CITEVAR consensus to do so. For this reason, I revert on sight every attempt to convert a cite to Vancouver, unless there's a consensus on the talk page that this article uses Vancouver citation format (which is rare, and I would be prone to challenge it if the article didn't begin in that format). The issue is important enough, I've considered a WP:VPPOL RfC to ban the Vancouver format as antithetical to our goals.
The input needs to be cite-format-neutral or it breaks cross-format compatibility of the raw information. — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼 21:55, 5 July 2018 (UTC)Maybe this is actually essentially the same proposal as the Nope, definitely not. —
SMcCandlish
☏
¢ 😼 21:58, 5 July 2018 (UTC); updated: —
SMcCandlish
☏
¢ 😼 23:34, 27 July 2018 (UTC)|af=
one below.
|authorn-link=
). —
SMcCandlish
☏
¢ 😼 22:13, 5 July 2018 (UTC)|vanc=
parameter, provided it's smart enough to extract the proper initials from several forms of input. Also a similar |initials=
parameter that displays as "Samuels, D. R." Given both of those then we could push for always encoding the full personal names even where an article's consistent displayed style is initials. And then we could push for phasing out vauthors= and requiring "no loss of data".|name-list-format=vanc
which has been in place for years. For consistency, all name-lists, author, editor, translator, interviewer are rendered in Vancouver style when |name-list-format=vanc
:
{{cite book |title=Title |chapter=Chapter |last=Brown |first=Ralph B. |editor-last=Green |editor-first=A. Gardner |name-list-style=vanc}}
|vanc=y
as a synonym? ♦
J. Johnson (JJ) (
talk) 22:37, 6 July 2018 (UTC)
|name-list-format=
as such was that it includes editors as well as authors, as noted above…or were you considering also having |ef=vanc
, |tf=vanc
, |if=vanc
, etc.? —
Phil |
Talk 15:06, 9 July 2018 (UTC)|vanc=y
, even if it just resolves to |name-list-format=vanc
(which pretty much no one is ever going to remember or use), the deprecated |vauthors=
. —
SMcCandlish
☏
¢ 😼 06:37, 16 July 2018 (UTC)
|vauthors=
? I don't see any above that haven't been addressed. It appears that any use of this parameter can be replaced by standardized |first1=
, |last1=
, and |name-list-format=vanc
, which could have a short alias. I would like to see this proceed, because |vauthors=
is a
bletcherous, legacy workaround that has been surpassed, and cleaning up after it is an increasing editorial drain. It needs to stop. At least 19 out of 20 uses of it I encounter are someone inserting it willy-nilly into an article that does not use Vancouver citation style anyway. —
SMcCandlish
☏
¢ 😼 23:34, 27 July 2018 (UTC)|vauthors=
seems acceptable, but there is still a question regarding doing |vanc=y
or |af=vanc
or some such. I think this discussion is on hold until the following discussion ("New parameter: af") is resolved. ♦
J. Johnson (JJ) (
talk) 23:01, 5 August 2018 (UTC)|authors=
which later was replaced with |vauthors=
.
WP:CITEVAR covers not only the rendered citation but also how citations are formatted in the raw wiki text. Hence replacing |vauthors=
with the much more verbose |first1=
, |last1=
, ... in articles where Vancouver was the first established citation style would violate CITEVAR. The rationale for using |vauthors=
may be found
here. In addition |firstn=
imposes few restrictions on how first name are stored, rendered, and displayed in the meta data. They can be spelled out in full, may or may not include middle names, use inititials with or without periods. In contrast, |vauthors=
imposes strict formatting requirements on first initials. In short, |vauthors=
is much more efficient and insures consistency.|pmid=
(or |isbn=
) ID and recreate the citation from scratch (including full author names if so desired) using one of the many available tools for doing so. Why replicate
PubMed within Wikipedia?
Boghog (
talk) 01:11, 6 August 2018 (UTC)determining whether someone qualifies for an |authorn-link=
– one really should go back to the original source to check the authors affiliation before linking authors.
Boghog (
talk) 01:23, 6 August 2018 (UTC)|vauthors=
is a
bletcherous, legacy workaround ...
Beauty is simplicity. |vauthors=
is minimalist, clean, and uncluttered. |first1=
, |last1=
, .... is bletcherous.
Boghog (
talk) 08:52, 6 August 2018 (UTC)Per the DOI standard, the approved character set for DOI suffixes is: "a-z", "A-Z", "0-9" and "-._;()/" since 2008. A "check DOI" error should be thrown if a doi with an non-approved character is found in a publication dated 2009 or later. It would help find these sort of errors [1]. Headbomb { t · c · p · b} 18:57, 23 June 2018 (UTC)
I just realized that doi: 10.1002/1097-0207(20000910/20)49:1/2<61::AID-NME923>3.0.CO;2-Y displays rather incorrectly... Headbomb { t · c · p · b} 16:36, 1 August 2018 (UTC)
I've done a lot of cleanup related to bad arxiv/bibcodes, but a thing that would greatly help is we had some sort of validation / verification that the date is consistent with the date part of identifiers.
For arxiv identifier, the date info is encoded in this format
YYMM.####
or YYMM.####
(e.g.
arXiv:
1301.2341: January 2013, submission #2341)foobar/YYMM###
(e.g.
arXiv:
alg-geom/9712032: December 1997, submission #032)Because arxivs are normally preprints, we should have a silent maintenance category
Category:CS1: arXiv date mismatch whenever |date=
is younger than what you can infer from the arxiv identifier.
For bibcodes, the format is the leading 4 digits refer to the year. Since bibcodes are normally for the version of record, we should have a silent maintenance category Category:CS1: bibcode date mismatch whenever the date doesn't match what you can infer from the bibcode.
This is fine
This would throw the bibcode date mismatch error
This would throw both the arxiv and bibcode date mismatch errors
With a |ignore-date-mismatch=yes
to suppress the categories when the mismatch is legit for a variety of reasons.
Headbomb {
t ·
c ·
p ·
b} 16:14, 24 February 2018 (UTC)
|ignore-date-mismatch=
is too ambiguous for my taste; the parameter name should indicate what it applies to, ideally, and this one is just for arXiv and Bibcode, not dates in general. See other discussions on this page about the difficulty of naming parameters and the confusion that it causes when editors misinterpret the names. –
Jonesey95 (
talk) 16:31, 22 March 2018 (UTC)
Does anyone know what the sfn is for episodes? I'm having trouble finding it. Armegon ( talk) 04:44, 9 August 2018 (UTC)
What would be the best way to form this citation?
{{cite web|url=http://archives.chicagotribune.com/1963/03/05/page/B11/article/irving-s-olds-u-s-steel-war-chief-is-dead|archive-url=https://www.newspapers.com/image/374753268/?terms=irving%2Bolds%2Bdead%2Bchicago|archive-date=2018|title=IRVING S. OLDS, U. S. STEEL WAR CHIEF, IS DEAD (March 5, 1963)|author=|date=|work=chicagotribune.com|accessdate=17 April 2017}} {{subscription required}}
Note that newspapers.com is not a web archive but similar to JSTOR and other commercial database providers and I believe shouldn't be in the |archiveurl=
but what to do with it is unclear. --
Green
C 13:47, 10 August 2018 (UTC)
{{cite news|url=https://chicagotribune.newspapers.com/image/374753268/?terms=IRVING%2BS.%2BOLDS%2C%2BU.%2BS.%2BSTEEL%2BWAR%2BCHIEF%2C%2BIS%2BDEAD|title=Irving S. Olds, U. S. steel war chief, is dead |author=|date=March 5, 1963|work=Chicago Tribune|accessdate=10 August 2018|subscription=yes |p=49 |via=Newspapers.com}}
{{
cite news}}
: Unknown parameter |subscription=
ignored (|url-access=
suggested) (
help){{dead link}}
tag? --
Green
C 14:34, 10 August 2018 (UTC)
{{cite web|url=http://archives.chicagotribune.com/1963/03/05/page/B11/article/irving-s-olds-u-s-steel-war-chief-is-dead|via=[https://www.newspapers.com/image/374753268/?terms=irving%2Bolds%2Bdead%2Bchicago]|title=IRVING S. OLDS, U. S. STEEL WAR CHIEF, IS DEAD (March 5, 1963)|author=|date=|work=chicagotribune.com|accessdate=17 April 2017}} {{subscription required}}"IRVING S. OLDS, U. S. STEEL WAR CHIEF, IS DEAD (March 5, 1963)". chicagotribune.com. Retrieved 17 April 2017 – via [2](subscription required).
{{
cite web}}
: External link in |via=
(
help)
Laatu (
talk) 14:59, 10 August 2018 (UTC)
Is it possible to add this parameter to Template:Cite web? It will be easy to cite sources using slides which are hard to link to. -- Kailash29792 (talk) 07:30, 13 August 2018 (UTC)
|at=
is for. See
the documentation for cite web. –
Jonesey95 (
talk) 11:26, 13 August 2018 (UTC)Right now, the citation templates like the cite book template prefers to place the surname before the first name, eg. "Smith, John". I'd rather it be "John Smith". The reason is that some names have unusual orderings. For example, Korean names place the family name first (eg Kim Il Sung, Kim Jong Il, Kim Jong Un). I'm also a bit uncertain where to place particles, like in "Victor von Doom". Is the "von" part of the surname or the first name? I think this template should lay out the names in their proper order. Kurzon ( talk) 06:14, 10 August 2018 (UTC)
I was told to discuss first. My change is a simplification, and I didn't think it was a bold change in need of discussion but here goes.
The documentation makes pedantic use of parentheses in the case of the phrase "Writer(s)". I understand as a matter of writing style some overly cautious editors are worried about the possibility of it being only one Writer or possibly multiple Writers, but this is complication is never necessary (instead of complicating the base case, editors should keep the base case simple, and then only in exceptional cases fully explain why the possible case of only 1 item is notable or requires warning). In the specific case of this documentation where no author is specified and an unknown Staff byline is used we simply cannot know the unknown, it might be one or many writers but it doesn't matter. In addition this is specifically a wikimarkup comment for the benefit of other editors, to indicate that the author was intentionally left blank because a staff byline was used.
Keep it simple, if the possibility of one or none is important say so, otherwise avoid over-punctuated plural(s). -- 37.110.218.43 ( talk) 15:20, 15 August 2018 (UTC)
FYI, I have removed a hack for Tidy. The problem was documented in phab:T29786 and is now fixed by Remex. -- Izno ( talk) 16:41, 16 August 2018 (UTC)
This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
Archive 40 | ← | Archive 43 | Archive 44 | Archive 45 | Archive 46 | Archive 47 | → | Archive 50 |
Similar to |df=
, it would be immensely useful to have a |af=
, covering author format. Right now we have |name-list-format=
(which accepts vanc
), but that's just awful to remember.
You could have
|last#=Smith |first#=John Howard (or |editor#-last=Smith |editor#-first=John Howard )
| |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
Core proposal [1] | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Last, First [2] | Last First [3] | First Last | MOS:INITIALS-compliant [4] | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
|
|
| ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Extended [5] | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Last, First | Last First | First Last | Specific style | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
|
|
| ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Overide | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|af#=ignore would ignore validation for |last#= /|first#= /|author#= specifically.
[6] This would allow for single-name authors (e.g. |author1=Riazuddin |author2=Fayyazuddin |last3=Rashid |first3=M. A. ) and corporate names (e.g. |author=RAND Corporation ) without losing the benefits of specific formats (e.g. |af=F. M. Last ).
| |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
Those would kick in for authors/editors and format them in the specified manner, e.g.
|last1=Dickinson
|first1=Emily
|last2=Fitzgerald
|first2=Francis Scott Key
|af=Last, F.M.
→ Dickinson, E.; Fitzgerald, F.S.K.|last1=Dickinson
|first1=Emily
|last2=Fitzgerald
|first2=Francis Scott Key
|af=Last, FM
→ Dickinson, E; Fitzgerald, FSK|last1=Dickinson
|first1=Emily
|last2=Fitzgerald
|first2=Francis Scott Key
|af=F. M. Last
→ E. Dickinson; F. S. K. Fitzgerald|last1=Dickinson
|first1=Emily
|last2=Fitzgerald
|first2=Francis Scott Key
|af=Vanc
→ Dickinson E, Fitzgerald FSand throw in error messages when the conversion to the specified format couldn't work.
|author1=Emily Dickinson
|last2=Fitzgerald
|first2=Francis Scott Key
|af=F. M. Last
→ Emily Dickinson; F. S. K. Fitzgerald (Error: |af=F. M. Last
requires |lastn=
/|firstn=
to be used consistently, convert |author1=
to |last1=
/|first1=
.)or have other issues
|last1=Dickinson
|first1=E.
, |last2=Fitzgerald
|first2=F. S.K.
|af=af
→ Dickinson, E.; F. S.K. Fitzgerald (Error: |first2=
has spacing issues)|last1=Languillat
|first1=J. -C
→ Languillat, J. -C (Error: |first1=J. -C
is mis-abbreviated.)|last1=Howard
|first1=J. B.C
→ Languillat, J. B.C (Error: |first1=J. B.C
is mis-abbreviated.)And then we could deprecate the god-awful |name-list-format=
.
Headbomb {
t ·
c ·
p ·
b} 14:30, 5 July 2018 (UTC)
|ao=
, or the long version, |author-order=
, with the allowable values being
|af3=AF1
to display |last3=Liu
|first3=Jianguo
one as the Chinese order Liu Jianguo, rather than Western order Jianguo Liu.
Headbomb {
t ·
c ·
p ·
b} 16:31, 5 July 2018 (UTC)|df=
is because Citoid, and its engineers, didn't want to fight with date formatting. I would oppose a spread of "X-format" parameters, since no need has been demonstrated here and adds a significant deviation in formatting. (We have the Vancouver formatting to draw Vancouverites trivially into the fold from using |authors=
, so I don't see an analog there, either.) --
Izno (
talk) 17:18, 5 July 2018 (UTC)
|first#=
manually, and then manually editing everything to use initials, as well as converting |author=
to |last=
/|first=
in the proper format. This also reduces the value of metadata a bit. Applying |af=LF4
to all citations would be so much easier and quicker to bring everything in a consistent format, find errors, and future proof the article's existing citation.
User:Citation Bot could then see that |af=LF4
is used in the article, and whenever it adds citations, it could then use |af=LF4
too. (Likewise for Citoid.)
Headbomb {
t ·
c ·
p ·
b} 18:07, 5 July 2018 (UTC)
|af=LF4
(or whichever style) afterwards make cleanup a million times quicker.
Headbomb {
t ·
c ·
p ·
b} 20:23, 5 July 2018 (UTC)
|name-list-format=CS1
or |af=LF4
would be useful to render |vauthors=
in standard CS1 author format in cases where CS1 is the predominate/first established style.
Boghog (
talk) 19:45, 5 July 2018 (UTC)|vauthors=
. However, we don't need this many citation formats. We should be moving toward consistency, not chaos. No one would remember that table of codes, nor use them consistently. We shouldn't have a name output formatting option that isn't either CS1/CS2 as defaults, depending on the template used, or output that is required (not just optional) by a particular major off-site citation style – one that can be reliably sourced in detail and as in current use, e.g. listed in Turabian, or as the mandatory style of some major journal publisher, or otherwise neither
WP:NFT nor obsolete. That is, if the citation style permits either "Chung, Margaret T." or "Chung, M. T." then we need no option to truncate to the latter (unless that abbreviated form is a hard requirement in some other cite style ). We have no editorial or reader interest in truncating the name data if not forced to do so. We likewise have no reason for any
MOS:INITIALS-defying formats (without the dots and/or spaces), absent a hard requirement like Vancouver's "Chung MT". —
SMcCandlish
☏
¢ 😼 22:10, 5 July 2018 (UTC)
you still won't be able to change them per WP:CITEVAR": bullshit. CITEVAR says only to first seek consensus. It doesn't even require consensus, only to first seek it. Having
|af=
is a good idea, but invoking CITEVAR drama to argue a piddling detail is not helpful. ♦
J. Johnson (JJ) (
talk) 19:44, 8 July 2018 (UTC)
I took the feedback from above, and refined the proposal. I've separated the outputs into those that are
MOS:INITIALS-compliant and those that aren't, and got rid of the obscure 'codes' in favor of obvious things people don't need to remember or look up. The ideal solution (maybe this would be possible with
WP:TemplateStyles) would be to declare one what the author format is once (e.g. {{
reflist|af=Last, F. M.}}
), and have citations inherit the style from there, but failing that a (non-mandatory, of course) |af=
in the citation themselves would allow to have much of the same effect.
Headbomb {
t ·
c ·
p ·
b} 00:49, 6 July 2018 (UTC)
|last=Smith
/|first=J.F.
, |author=John Smith
, |last=Smith
/|first=JF
and |last=Smith
/|first=John
. Often in the same citation. This isn't a proposal to deploy those by bots, but to allow humans to more easily standardize citation articles and clean them up when they need to be, and help bots respect an existing style.
Headbomb {
t ·
c ·
p ·
b} 22:51, 7 July 2018 (UTC)
|af=Last, F. M.
, rather than changing |last1=DeLamater |first1=John D. |last2=Sill |first2=Morgan
to |last1=DeLamater |first1=J. D. |last2=Sill |first2=M.
manually.
Headbomb {
t ·
c ·
p ·
b} 23:17, 7 July 2018 (UTC)|af=initials
I could supply what I have, and the article could be consistent using just initials.|firstX=
displayed as specified (first name, middle initials, "Jr.", etc.).|af=initials
: initial (with period) of first name, with middle initials.|af=vanc
: displayed in Vancouver style.|af=bluebook
(or |af=caps
): last name in small-caps.|af=initials
, it is indeed untidy to have full names for some authors and only initials for others, and, as you say, sometimes that's all that is available. But tidying that up by uniformly displaying only initials would be hiding information that could be useful to readers.
Kanguole 09:29, 9 July 2018 (UTC)
I took the feedback from both sections above, and I realize this was turning into something way more complicated than it needed to be. So instead, I've refocused this into something more straightforward, focusing on flagging downright errors at 99% case use, rather than minor style variations (but still allowing them).
|af=
left empty) would simply verify that |last#=
/|first#=
/|author#=
are not wrong. It would report a variety of issues like bad hyphenation (|first=J.- H.
, bad abbreviations (|first=J. H
, bad capitalizations |first=J. h.
, or bad punctuation (|first=John,
. No error messages are thrown if you have a mixture of "Smith, John H." and "Jones, A. F.".|af=First Last
simply displays the first/last names in that order, checks that the parameters themselves are not wrong, and makes sures that |last#=
/|first#=
is not mixed with |author#=
. This can be overridden by |af#=ignore
so single names / corporate names can still be used.|af=MOS
would ensure that initials, if used, would be in the MOS-format. This can help catch inconsistent abbreviations, when used (e.g. |first1=J.H.
+ |first2=A F
), but does not force abbreviations to be used.|af=Last, F. M.
or |af=F.M. Last
or whatever to present things in that specific format. If |af=F.M. Last
is used, both |last=Smith
|first=John H.
/ |last=Smith
|first=J. H.
are presented as J.H. Smith. Errors are only reported when the parameters themselves are wrong or the output cannot be presented in the specified format.Headbomb { t · c · p · b} 19:17, 9 July 2018 (UTC)
|author#=Thant
is all that's needed (or possibly |author#=U Thant
if the honorific is needed, although we don't usually include those). But let's say there's someone out there with the first name O and a last name of Johnson, well there's nothing wrong with |last=Johnson
|first=O
, so there wouldn't be any errors shown there. You would get an error if you specified |af=MOS
, but it's something you could overide with |af#=ignore
.
Headbomb {
t ·
c ·
p ·
b} 20:36, 9 July 2018 (UTC)|af=MOS
should be a default not an option; MoS applies to citation material except when a citation style requires (not just optionally permits) a variance from it, and that citation style is used consistently in the article (and even then we might have a consensus discussion to change it). Second, we don't need to throw errors for trivial problems, except maybe in preview mode. Better to have a cleanup category and may be
WP:GENFIXES deal with it. —
SMcCandlish
☏
¢ 😼 22:05, 9 July 2018 (UTC)
|af=MOS
being the default would lead to hundreds of thousands of errors for perfectly valid styles. So no, we can't make that default. And cases like
Jennifer 8. Lee are not forgotten, that's what |af#=ignore
is for.
Headbomb {
t ·
c ·
p ·
b} 22:08, 9 July 2018 (UTC)
You can wish the templates/people worked in a way until you're blue in the face, the fact remain that people use them and errors creep in. For instance, in Jyoti Bhusan Chatterjea you have the following
{{
cite web}}
: CS1 maint: multiple names: authors list (
link)Should we do nothing? Or should we tell people "Hey, this is not how you should use |last=
"? This way the error can be fixed and the citation turned into a proper:
This sort of error checking would lead to vast amounts of citation improvements and fixes. For instance, the very basic error of the type |last=J.
are so numerous you cannot find them all with straightfoward searches (
Search for insource:/last *= *[A-Z]\./).
Also the parameters values are not cryptic, they are explicit in what the format should be. If you've got better names for parameter values, put them forward, but I don't feel you could be clearer. Headbomb { t · c · p · b} 23:16, 9 July 2018 (UTC)
Please see
Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style/Dates and numbers#Proposal: End "date-forking" into different styles for publication and access/archive in same cite
—
SMcCandlish
☏
¢ 😼 15:20, 29 July 2018 (UTC)
I have removed lang in Module:Citation/CS1/Suggestions/sandbox as it was whitelisted previously.
I also have a question regarding the suggestions list: the module documentation says the main list is only semi-protected. Does that mean we are invited to make a change there without sandboxing it first and waiting for the general cadence of rollouts? Or should that be full/template-protected given that it is presently transcluded on 20k pages? -- Izno ( talk) 21:53, 31 July 2018 (UTC)
This might be a frequent question, but how is one supposed to cite a portion (certain page(s)) of an article in a periodical, or a chapter from a book, in a Wikipedia article that does not have separate lists of references and bibliography, especially when the said work is cited only once in the article?
I know there are {{
r}}, {{
rp}}, {{
sfn}}, etc., but AFAIK they are seldom used for works cited only once in such an article, and quite often do I see |page(s)=
used for the range of pages of the work that is relevant to the claim, not of where to locate the work as a whole in a larger volume (which is permitted according to the
template documentation). But it is also the usual practice (not just on Wikipedia but in scholarly works in general) to indicate the range of pages the cited work occupies in a volume so that the reader knows where to look for it. But in the CS1 templates, only one of |page=
, |pages=
and |at=
is allowed to appear, so these two practices are not feasible at the same time at least in a CS1 template.
So how is one supposed to indicate the relevant part of a source that is in turn a part of a larger volume? Need one indicate only the relevant portion and not the location of the work itself? Or indicate the the location of the work in the template and use {{ rp}} etc. to show the relevant part, even if the work is cited only once? Nardog ( talk) 20:37, 30 July 2018 (UTC)
<ref>{{cite book/journal/etc|...}}</ref>
, but the relevant information that backs up my claim is only on page 30. The book is not cited anywhere else in the article. What should I do?
Nardog (
talk) 21:04, 30 July 2018 (UTC)
page: The number of a single page in the source that supports the content.it doesn't say to specify what pages the chapters are. Emir of Wikipedia ( talk) 21:09, 30 July 2018 (UTC)
{{
cite journal}}
which is our template for those journals. cs1|2 have elected to lump all identifiers together at the end of the rendered citation (it has been this way for many a year.those academic journals(whichever they might be). Not going to do that except to say: the citation style used by any particular academic journal has no bearing on how cs1|2 render citations at en.wiki; has no bearing on how the community here have decided that cs1|2 shall execute those renderings; has no bearing on what the community here have decided are the appropriate uses of the template parameters.
notationso I guess I have no idea what it is that you are asking.
I wrote nothing about notation, I was referring to my previous post, where, in fact, I had written nothing about notation.
I'm asking you if you know of any academic publication or house style that indicates, inside a citation (not in-text references), the page range of the relevant part of the cited work in place of that of the entire work in a larger work, such as a book or journal.Nardog ( talk) 20:11, 31 July 2018 (UTC)
2. Baker, R.W., Knox, J.C., Lively, R.S., and Olsen, B.R., 1998, Evidence for early entrenchment of the upper Mississippi River valley, in Patterson, C.J., and Wright, H.E., Jr., eds., Contributions to Quaternary Studies in Minnesota: Minnesota Geological Survey Report of Investigations 49, p. 113–120.
if you know of any academic publication [such as a journal or book] or house style [such as CMS, APA, MLA, AP, or whatever a publisher adopts] that indicates, inside a [full] citation (not in-text references ["short-cites" as you call them]), the page range of the relevant part [or, "the in-source location of the specific material or passage you are citing"] of the cited work [such as a journal paper or book chapter] in place of [the page range] of [the entirety of the aforementioned journal paper or book chapter] in [the journal issue or book the said paper or chapter is included in].Now is that clearer to you? Nardog ( talk) 01:26, 2 August 2018 (UTC)
{{
cite journal|...}}
Theorem 4, p. 29." or "{{
cite journal|...}}
See in particular p. 29." —
David Eppstein (
talk) 20:54, 30 July 2018 (UTC)
{{
cite xxx}}
" is my standard way of doing it.
Headbomb {
t ·
c ·
p ·
b} 21:02, 30 July 2018 (UTC)
|pages=
to show the location (page range) of that portion in the larger work. (Note that I dispute the use of |pages=
for in-source speicification.)|page(s)=
.
Nardog (
talk) 23:06, 30 July 2018 (UTC)
not natively supported by those templates": ah, perhaps you are referring to the current necessity of adding a
|ref=harv
line when using CS1 templates. Which is certainly easy enough. And see also the
#Proposal: make ref=harv the default for CS1 discussion above about having "ref" default to "harv" for CS1 templates. Or just use {{
citation}}, where "ref=harv" is already the default. ♦
J. Johnson (JJ) (
talk) 21:48, 31 July 2018 (UTC)
|ref=harv
don't have much use for a source that appear only once in an article without a bibliography, do they?<ref>...</ref>
with a cite template in it. If {{cite xxx}} had a built-in ability to indicate where the portion of the source relevant to the claim is outside the main citation in addition to where to find the entire source, don't you think that would deter people from using |page(s)=
for in-source specifications?
Nardog (
talk) 22:02, 31 July 2018 (UTC)
<ref>...</ref>
tags are part of the citation itself. That one can add all sorts of stuff inside a note seems to be not well known. I don't know what kind of {cite} feature would fix that.Chicago Manual of Style, 17th ed., in the chapter on the notes & bibliography system of citation, p. 752, states
Page numbers and other locators. In notes, where reference is usually to a particular passage in a book or journal, only the page numbers pertaining to that passage are given. In bibliographies, no page numbers are given for books cited as a whole; for easier location of journal articles or for chapeters or other sections of a book, the beginning and ending page numbers of the entire article or chapter are given.
Jc3s5h ( talk) 19:10, 31 July 2018 (UTC)
page numbers pertaining to that passage are given" (italics added) sounds like an in-source specifier. Those go with the short-cites; they do not apply to the full citations that might be collected in a bibliography, and are not contingent on having a biblography. ♦ J. Johnson (JJ) ( talk) 22:22, 31 July 2018 (UTC)
Side note: Editors who believe that {{
rp}} is an abomination should watch
m:WMDE Technical Wishes/Book referencing. The creator of the rp template is hoping that his old template could be retired after this long-discussed system is (eventually) implemented.
WhatamIdoing (
talk) 05:09, 1 August 2018 (UTC)
Just like |pages=1-15
renders as 1–15, rather than 1-15, so should |issue=1-2
render as 1–2, rather than 1-2.
Headbomb {
t ·
c ·
p ·
b} 14:17, 30 July 2018 (UTC)
Wikitext | {{cite journal
|
---|---|
Live | "Title". Journal. 1 (3–4): 5–6. |
Sandbox | "Title". Journal. 1 (3–4): 5–6. |
|volume=
but only when rendering in bold font; not when |volume=
renders in normal font:
{{cite journal/new |title=Title |journal=Journal |volume=1-2}}
{{cite journal/new |title=Title |journal=Journal |volume=1-2}}
|pages=3-A
/|issue=3-A
/|volume=3-A
, e.g.
{{
cite journal}}
: Cite journal requires |journal=
(
help){{cite journal |title=Title |volume=3-a |issue=3-A |pages=3-A}}
Wikitext | {{cite journal
|
---|---|
Live | "Title". 3-A (a-3): 3–15. {{
cite journal}} : Cite journal requires |journal= (
help)
|
Sandbox | "Title". 3-A (a-3): 3–15. {{
cite journal}} : Cite journal requires |journal= (
help)
|
{{
cite journal}}
: Cite journal requires |journal=
(
help)|pages=L21-L23
? Those are pretty common.
Headbomb {
t ·
c ·
p ·
b} 04:16, 2 August 2018 (UTC)
Wikitext | {{cite book
|
---|---|
Live | Title. pp. 3–6, A–C, R–S, L3 - L6, H4–H9, 3A–6B, 15, A. |
Sandbox | Title. pp. 3–6, A–C, R–S, L3 - L6, H4–H9, 3A–6B, 15, A. |
Wikitext | {{cite book
|
---|---|
Live | Title. pp. 3–6, A–C, R–S, L3 – L6, 3A–6B. |
Sandbox | Title. pp. 3–6, A–C, R–S, L3 – L6, 3A–6B. |
Wikitext | {{cite book
|
---|---|
Live | Title. pp. 3.a–6.a, A-1–C-5, 1-2–1-5. |
Sandbox | Title. pp. 3.a–6.a, A-1–C-5, 1-2–1-5. |
|page=1-2
is still converted to use an endash. Elsewhere I suggested a mechanism that could be used to mean "accept this as written" which uses the doubled-parentheses markup supported by |vauthors=
as |page=((1-2))
|ref=harv
onerous. If we are looking for ease-of-typing, adding ((
and ))
seems easier to me than typing out the ten characters required for {{
hyphen}}
. This works:
{{cite book/new |title=Title |pages=3.a - 6.a, A-1 - C-5, ((1-2a)), 1-2-1-5}}
We need to ditch this. All it's doing is producing shite metadata, and people are abusing it to destroy good metadata we already have. I keep having to revert this all the time. |vauthors=
is a pointless drain on other editors' time. If someone wants Vancouver-style names, they can do |last1=Ceesdale
|first1=AB
|last2=Effly
|first2=DE
....
—
SMcCandlish
☏
¢ 😼 07:40, 5 July 2018 (UTC)
|vauthors=
is not the same as that produced by |last=
|first=
?
{{cite book |title=Title |last1=Ceesdale |first1=AB |last2=Effly |first2=DE}}
'"`UNIQ--templatestyles-00000048-QINU`"'<cite id="CITEREFCeesdaleEffly" class="citation book cs1">Ceesdale, AB; Effly, DE. ''Title''.</cite><span title="ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&rft_val_fmt=info%3Aofi%2Ffmt%3Akev%3Amtx%3Abook&rft.genre=book&rft.btitle=Title&rft.aulast=Ceesdale&rft.aufirst=AB&rft.au=Effly%2C+DE&rfr_id=info%3Asid%2Fen.wikipedia.org%3AHelp+talk%3ACitation+Style+1%2FArchive+45" class="Z3988"></span>
{{cite book |title=Title |vauthors=Ceesdale AB, Effly DE}}
'"`UNIQ--templatestyles-0000004B-QINU`"'<cite id="CITEREFCeesdaleEffly" class="citation book cs1">Ceesdale AB, Effly DE. ''Title''.</cite><span title="ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&rft_val_fmt=info%3Aofi%2Ffmt%3Akev%3Amtx%3Abook&rft.genre=book&rft.btitle=Title&rft.aulast=Ceesdale&rft.aufirst=AB&rft.au=Effly%2C+DE&rfr_id=info%3Asid%2Fen.wikipedia.org%3AHelp+talk%3ACitation+Style+1%2FArchive+45" class="Z3988"></span>
|vauthors=
has advanced logic because it expects a very specific format and will throw errors if things are not declared in that format. That's why it can produce the correct metadata.
Headbomb {
t ·
c ·
p ·
b} 14:33, 5 July 2018 (UTC)
|vauthors=
should just be deprecated and replaced with a |vanc=
parameter that applies visual output munging to data submitted as parameter information – without loss of actual data; i.e. render |last1=Samuels
|first1=Diana R.
|vanc=y
as Samuels DR, without costing us the full name, which may be the only way to tell one author apart from another without digging around in journal sites that maybe, if you're lucky, will give you the full name.
Any time people convert other citation formats to Vancouver, they cost us information (not just metadata). This makes it pointlessly onerous to convert back (either re-research the sources, or dig back in page history) even when there's a WP:CITEVAR consensus to do so. For this reason, I revert on sight every attempt to convert a cite to Vancouver, unless there's a consensus on the talk page that this article uses Vancouver citation format (which is rare, and I would be prone to challenge it if the article didn't begin in that format). The issue is important enough, I've considered a WP:VPPOL RfC to ban the Vancouver format as antithetical to our goals.
The input needs to be cite-format-neutral or it breaks cross-format compatibility of the raw information. — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼 21:55, 5 July 2018 (UTC)Maybe this is actually essentially the same proposal as the Nope, definitely not. —
SMcCandlish
☏
¢ 😼 21:58, 5 July 2018 (UTC); updated: —
SMcCandlish
☏
¢ 😼 23:34, 27 July 2018 (UTC)|af=
one below.
|authorn-link=
). —
SMcCandlish
☏
¢ 😼 22:13, 5 July 2018 (UTC)|vanc=
parameter, provided it's smart enough to extract the proper initials from several forms of input. Also a similar |initials=
parameter that displays as "Samuels, D. R." Given both of those then we could push for always encoding the full personal names even where an article's consistent displayed style is initials. And then we could push for phasing out vauthors= and requiring "no loss of data".|name-list-format=vanc
which has been in place for years. For consistency, all name-lists, author, editor, translator, interviewer are rendered in Vancouver style when |name-list-format=vanc
:
{{cite book |title=Title |chapter=Chapter |last=Brown |first=Ralph B. |editor-last=Green |editor-first=A. Gardner |name-list-style=vanc}}
|vanc=y
as a synonym? ♦
J. Johnson (JJ) (
talk) 22:37, 6 July 2018 (UTC)
|name-list-format=
as such was that it includes editors as well as authors, as noted above…or were you considering also having |ef=vanc
, |tf=vanc
, |if=vanc
, etc.? —
Phil |
Talk 15:06, 9 July 2018 (UTC)|vanc=y
, even if it just resolves to |name-list-format=vanc
(which pretty much no one is ever going to remember or use), the deprecated |vauthors=
. —
SMcCandlish
☏
¢ 😼 06:37, 16 July 2018 (UTC)
|vauthors=
? I don't see any above that haven't been addressed. It appears that any use of this parameter can be replaced by standardized |first1=
, |last1=
, and |name-list-format=vanc
, which could have a short alias. I would like to see this proceed, because |vauthors=
is a
bletcherous, legacy workaround that has been surpassed, and cleaning up after it is an increasing editorial drain. It needs to stop. At least 19 out of 20 uses of it I encounter are someone inserting it willy-nilly into an article that does not use Vancouver citation style anyway. —
SMcCandlish
☏
¢ 😼 23:34, 27 July 2018 (UTC)|vauthors=
seems acceptable, but there is still a question regarding doing |vanc=y
or |af=vanc
or some such. I think this discussion is on hold until the following discussion ("New parameter: af") is resolved. ♦
J. Johnson (JJ) (
talk) 23:01, 5 August 2018 (UTC)|authors=
which later was replaced with |vauthors=
.
WP:CITEVAR covers not only the rendered citation but also how citations are formatted in the raw wiki text. Hence replacing |vauthors=
with the much more verbose |first1=
, |last1=
, ... in articles where Vancouver was the first established citation style would violate CITEVAR. The rationale for using |vauthors=
may be found
here. In addition |firstn=
imposes few restrictions on how first name are stored, rendered, and displayed in the meta data. They can be spelled out in full, may or may not include middle names, use inititials with or without periods. In contrast, |vauthors=
imposes strict formatting requirements on first initials. In short, |vauthors=
is much more efficient and insures consistency.|pmid=
(or |isbn=
) ID and recreate the citation from scratch (including full author names if so desired) using one of the many available tools for doing so. Why replicate
PubMed within Wikipedia?
Boghog (
talk) 01:11, 6 August 2018 (UTC)determining whether someone qualifies for an |authorn-link=
– one really should go back to the original source to check the authors affiliation before linking authors.
Boghog (
talk) 01:23, 6 August 2018 (UTC)|vauthors=
is a
bletcherous, legacy workaround ...
Beauty is simplicity. |vauthors=
is minimalist, clean, and uncluttered. |first1=
, |last1=
, .... is bletcherous.
Boghog (
talk) 08:52, 6 August 2018 (UTC)Per the DOI standard, the approved character set for DOI suffixes is: "a-z", "A-Z", "0-9" and "-._;()/" since 2008. A "check DOI" error should be thrown if a doi with an non-approved character is found in a publication dated 2009 or later. It would help find these sort of errors [1]. Headbomb { t · c · p · b} 18:57, 23 June 2018 (UTC)
I just realized that doi: 10.1002/1097-0207(20000910/20)49:1/2<61::AID-NME923>3.0.CO;2-Y displays rather incorrectly... Headbomb { t · c · p · b} 16:36, 1 August 2018 (UTC)
I've done a lot of cleanup related to bad arxiv/bibcodes, but a thing that would greatly help is we had some sort of validation / verification that the date is consistent with the date part of identifiers.
For arxiv identifier, the date info is encoded in this format
YYMM.####
or YYMM.####
(e.g.
arXiv:
1301.2341: January 2013, submission #2341)foobar/YYMM###
(e.g.
arXiv:
alg-geom/9712032: December 1997, submission #032)Because arxivs are normally preprints, we should have a silent maintenance category
Category:CS1: arXiv date mismatch whenever |date=
is younger than what you can infer from the arxiv identifier.
For bibcodes, the format is the leading 4 digits refer to the year. Since bibcodes are normally for the version of record, we should have a silent maintenance category Category:CS1: bibcode date mismatch whenever the date doesn't match what you can infer from the bibcode.
This is fine
This would throw the bibcode date mismatch error
This would throw both the arxiv and bibcode date mismatch errors
With a |ignore-date-mismatch=yes
to suppress the categories when the mismatch is legit for a variety of reasons.
Headbomb {
t ·
c ·
p ·
b} 16:14, 24 February 2018 (UTC)
|ignore-date-mismatch=
is too ambiguous for my taste; the parameter name should indicate what it applies to, ideally, and this one is just for arXiv and Bibcode, not dates in general. See other discussions on this page about the difficulty of naming parameters and the confusion that it causes when editors misinterpret the names. –
Jonesey95 (
talk) 16:31, 22 March 2018 (UTC)
Does anyone know what the sfn is for episodes? I'm having trouble finding it. Armegon ( talk) 04:44, 9 August 2018 (UTC)
What would be the best way to form this citation?
{{cite web|url=http://archives.chicagotribune.com/1963/03/05/page/B11/article/irving-s-olds-u-s-steel-war-chief-is-dead|archive-url=https://www.newspapers.com/image/374753268/?terms=irving%2Bolds%2Bdead%2Bchicago|archive-date=2018|title=IRVING S. OLDS, U. S. STEEL WAR CHIEF, IS DEAD (March 5, 1963)|author=|date=|work=chicagotribune.com|accessdate=17 April 2017}} {{subscription required}}
Note that newspapers.com is not a web archive but similar to JSTOR and other commercial database providers and I believe shouldn't be in the |archiveurl=
but what to do with it is unclear. --
Green
C 13:47, 10 August 2018 (UTC)
{{cite news|url=https://chicagotribune.newspapers.com/image/374753268/?terms=IRVING%2BS.%2BOLDS%2C%2BU.%2BS.%2BSTEEL%2BWAR%2BCHIEF%2C%2BIS%2BDEAD|title=Irving S. Olds, U. S. steel war chief, is dead |author=|date=March 5, 1963|work=Chicago Tribune|accessdate=10 August 2018|subscription=yes |p=49 |via=Newspapers.com}}
{{
cite news}}
: Unknown parameter |subscription=
ignored (|url-access=
suggested) (
help){{dead link}}
tag? --
Green
C 14:34, 10 August 2018 (UTC)
{{cite web|url=http://archives.chicagotribune.com/1963/03/05/page/B11/article/irving-s-olds-u-s-steel-war-chief-is-dead|via=[https://www.newspapers.com/image/374753268/?terms=irving%2Bolds%2Bdead%2Bchicago]|title=IRVING S. OLDS, U. S. STEEL WAR CHIEF, IS DEAD (March 5, 1963)|author=|date=|work=chicagotribune.com|accessdate=17 April 2017}} {{subscription required}}"IRVING S. OLDS, U. S. STEEL WAR CHIEF, IS DEAD (March 5, 1963)". chicagotribune.com. Retrieved 17 April 2017 – via [2](subscription required).
{{
cite web}}
: External link in |via=
(
help)
Laatu (
talk) 14:59, 10 August 2018 (UTC)
Is it possible to add this parameter to Template:Cite web? It will be easy to cite sources using slides which are hard to link to. -- Kailash29792 (talk) 07:30, 13 August 2018 (UTC)
|at=
is for. See
the documentation for cite web. –
Jonesey95 (
talk) 11:26, 13 August 2018 (UTC)Right now, the citation templates like the cite book template prefers to place the surname before the first name, eg. "Smith, John". I'd rather it be "John Smith". The reason is that some names have unusual orderings. For example, Korean names place the family name first (eg Kim Il Sung, Kim Jong Il, Kim Jong Un). I'm also a bit uncertain where to place particles, like in "Victor von Doom". Is the "von" part of the surname or the first name? I think this template should lay out the names in their proper order. Kurzon ( talk) 06:14, 10 August 2018 (UTC)
I was told to discuss first. My change is a simplification, and I didn't think it was a bold change in need of discussion but here goes.
The documentation makes pedantic use of parentheses in the case of the phrase "Writer(s)". I understand as a matter of writing style some overly cautious editors are worried about the possibility of it being only one Writer or possibly multiple Writers, but this is complication is never necessary (instead of complicating the base case, editors should keep the base case simple, and then only in exceptional cases fully explain why the possible case of only 1 item is notable or requires warning). In the specific case of this documentation where no author is specified and an unknown Staff byline is used we simply cannot know the unknown, it might be one or many writers but it doesn't matter. In addition this is specifically a wikimarkup comment for the benefit of other editors, to indicate that the author was intentionally left blank because a staff byline was used.
Keep it simple, if the possibility of one or none is important say so, otherwise avoid over-punctuated plural(s). -- 37.110.218.43 ( talk) 15:20, 15 August 2018 (UTC)
FYI, I have removed a hack for Tidy. The problem was documented in phab:T29786 and is now fixed by Remex. -- Izno ( talk) 16:41, 16 August 2018 (UTC)